No Free Pass For Podcasts

From 2004-2012 I was the senior audio engineer at IT Conversations. The audio production for the network was handled by a few volunteers that in most cases had previous experience producing audio for both broadcast and the web.

One of the things that we strived to achieve was consistent distribution loudness throughout the entire network. This included equal, average (perceived) loudness for submitted content management audio components as well as distributed Podcasts. This approach was essential, and it freed listeners from having to constantly adjust playback volume while listening to our distributed programs.

Loudness inconsistency in broadcast was for many years a major problem. As a result the U.S. government implemented The CALM Act resulting in regulation of distribution loudness. U.S. Broadcasters must now comply with the ATSC A/85 specifications, and European Broadcasters must comply with EBU R128 specifications.

Bottom line is the days of reaching for your remote to attenuate playback volume between programs and loud adverts are finally passing.

Unfortunately the problem of inconsistent distribution loudness persists in the Podcasting Community. I've written about this extensively on my site. Check out the example that I referenced in the July 13, 2014 article "No Free Pass for Podcasts."

And so I ask:

- Are you aware that a standard PPM Meter (Peak, dBFS meter) is not capable of measuring perceived/average loudness (aka Program or Integrated Loudness)? It's designed to monitor Peak Audio Levels and to avoid overload. This has nothing to do with perception. Two programs with the same exact Peak Ceiling don't necessarily match perceptually. In other words - one program may be much louder than the other.

- Do you strive as an independent producer to distribute your Podcast with a consistent Program Loudness target and suitable Peak Ceiling from program to program?

- If you run a "network" of Podcasts - are all programs processed to specific set of targets in order to maintain consistency?

- Are you aware that the distribution of clipped audio in Podcasting is widespread?

- Do you know how to use a Loudness Meter?

- Are you aware of the broadcast standards, and how they are not suitable for internet/mobile audio distribution for various reasons.

- Do you know there are recommended best practices for Podcast Audio distribution?

Let's get into it ...

-paul.

Paul, I fully support your effort and encourage you to proceed full speed ahead. However, the majority of podcasters are hobbyists who not only don't have technical backgrounds, they're not interested in the nuts and bolts. It's frustrating. Many of them are using webcam mics, computers mics, and even Blue Snowballs. Their broadcast medium is Google Hangouts. So much for quality.

This information is the kind of stuff that is perfect for the IAIB. We're trying to cater to podcasters and Internet broadcasters who want good quality and are willing to work to achieve it.

I'm sure you would agree that the terrestrial radio loudness wars got completely out of hand to the point of making their signals unlistenable for long periods of time. Let's hope that Internet broadcasting does not continue down that path, although it's not looking good. A lot of people are looking for the "secret sauce" recipe that is nothing more than Adobe Audition's multiband audio processor. (That'll be $1000, please.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcphillips

Paul, I fully support your effort and encourage you to proceed full speed ahead. However, the majority of podcasters are hobbyists who not only don't have technical backgrounds, they're not interested in the nuts and bolts. It's frustrating. Many of them are using webcam mics, computers mics, and even Blue Snowballs. Their broadcast medium is Google Hangouts. So much for quality.

This information is the kind of stuff that is perfect for the IAIB. We're trying to cater to podcasters and Internet broadcasters who want good quality and are willing to work to achieve it.

I'm sure you would agree that the terrestrial radio loudness wars got completely out of hand to the point of making their signals unlistenable for long periods of time. Let's hope that Internet broadcasting does not continue down that path, although it's not looking good. A lot of people are looking for the "secret sauce" recipe that is nothing more than Adobe Audition's multiband audio processor. (That'll be $1000, please.)

---

Mike,

Talk about being on the same page ;) Part of the reason why I joined the forum was because I'm so frustrated with the amount of bad advise that is being passed around in the space. And I know EXACTLY what you are referring to with regards to the Audition "secret sauce" preset in exchange for $1K. It's absolutly incredible.

And what about people charging for gear setup "recommendations" when the consultant has absolutely no clue and no understanding of what they are recommending? I saw one video on YouTube where the consultant was pretty candid about his lack of understanding of setup for a compressor and was operating solely on guidance of the manufacturer. And people pay him for this advise? Wow ...

And guess what? That "secret sauce" is part of the reason why many podcasts are up around -10.0 LUFS (Program Loudness), which in my opinion is just way too loud and overdone. It's almost like these guy's are using Loudness to set themselves apart from everyone else with no regard for best practices. This mindset ruined music distribution and terrestrial radio. Now it's happening in the Podcasting space.

I totally understand that many Podcast Producers are (with respect) Hobbyists and lack the skills that are required for proper gear setup/use, and post production techniques. The reason why I started this thread was to attempt to ignite a productive discussion and offer any assistance that I can. I'm not 100% familiar with everyone that participates here. OTOH I do know that advice offered by guys like Mike and Andrew is 100% legit.

-paul.

This is a good discussion and will be a good service, if it produces more positive results.

It is correct there are so many non-knowledgeable persons doing podcasting audio and video.

The people that are presenting themselves as podcasting consultants for the most part are not unlike consultants in other disciplines.
I recall when people would install a plug in modem in their computer and believed themselves to be experts.

I've watched hundreds of hours of videos and audios on the topic of podcasting. Disinformation is very prominent. Most people don't know the difference.

Just learning the terminology is daunting most of the time. I have bought hardware and software that I may never use. GuitarCenter helped me alot...to buy things. I'm not knocking them, the guy helping me knew about as much as I did. GC is more of a music store and podcasting is not that appealing to the clerks.

I've learned alot on youtube and I'm grateful for the information. I could never learn what I know now from reading podcast books, if there are any. I'm not saying I know so much either.

I appreciate anyone that is willing to share, and put up with our lack of knowledge and understanding about audio. I don't believe in the "secret sauce".

Thanks for sharing it definitely means something to me.

I’ve only been into this hobby for about a year and I too ended up with gear that I now realize is less than ideal for podcasting. As for the so-called ‘secret sauce’ I never knew what that meant until now. Ironically, I had downloaded the demo version of Adobe Audition a few days ago without realizing this is the overrated ingredient that some have been referring to. In its defense I can attest that it’s a huge step up from ‘Garage Band’ and I sorta like it.

The sound engineering part of this hobby is the most intriguing for me and I suck up as much information from people like Mike, Andrew and Donovan that I can get. However, if I had to do it all over again with what I know now, I would have started with a Wheatstone/Audio Arts or Axia unit while skipping everything else in between. Hindsight is 20/20 but I had no idea I would become addicted and hence, I now have some buyers remorse with some of the gear I have. Oh well, 'at least I'm saving 15% or more on my car insurance'.

Thanks, Dan, for mentioning me in the great company of Mike and Andrew! :)

For those that are interested, here is the "secret sauce" setting in Audition. It's a modified version of of the Multi-band Compressor stock setting for radio broadcast. If I remember correctly, the only thing that gets modified is the limiter, which is set at -1.5db. I'm also including a link that shows my Dynamics Processor effect that I came up with on my own. I record my raw audio at -12db to -6db, process with the Multi-band Compress and then apply my Dynamics Processor to expand certain levels and gate out anything at certain frequencies. I experimented with the Dynamics Processor until it just sounded right to my own ears. Not a very scientific approach, I know.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/amn_shows/m...r_settings.png

https://s3.amazonaws.com/amn_shows/m...r_settings.png

Regarding my assessment of the widespread distribution of clipped audio ...

Here's some data lifted from one of the most popular, commercially produced Podcasts available:

http://f-video.s3.amazonaws.com/TAL-stats.jpg

Notice the Peak Ceiling is 0dBFS. However the "True Peak" is +0.2 dBTP. The distributed MP3 actually contains 1846 Intersample Peaks. This is essentially clipped audio.

The root of the problem is (in most cases) the attributes of lossy codecs (MP3), and the lack of available headroom in the source or "lossless" master. If your WAV or AIFF has a Peak Ceiling near or at 0 dBFS prior to encoding to lossy, the resulting MP3 may potentially include clipped samples. The lower the bit rate, the higher the risk.

The way around this is simple: Headroom. Typically I recommend a Peak Ceiling of -1.5 dB (or lower) in your WAV or AIFF prior to encoding, with -1.0 dB as the ultimate Ceiling.

Again it's important to note that the Peak Ceiling has nothing to do with perception, or what we are hearing in terms of average loudness. The key is to be conscious of the Program (average) Loudness AND the True Peak, treating them as separate indicators.

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

For those that are interested, here is the "secret sauce" setting in Audition. It's a modified version of of the Multi-band Compressor stock setting for radio broadcast. If I remember correctly, the only thing that gets modified is the limiter, which is set at -1.5db.

---

Donovan,

With respect the Margin paramater in the Limiter settings area is what sets the ultimate Peak Ceiling. It's not the same as the global Output Gain setting.

Try this -

Grab a piece of audio with consistent loudness and purposely max it out. In other words - Peak Normalize to 0 dBFS. Now pass it through the Audition Multi-Band Compressor using your modified preset. You'll notice the Peak Ceiling on the output will surpass -1.5 dB.

Now set the Output Gain to 0 dB, and set the Margin in the Limiter settings area to -1.5 dB. Do you see a difference?

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptfigg

Donovan,

With respect the Margin paramater in the Limiter settings area is what sets the ultimate Peak Ceiling. It's not the same as the global Output Gain setting.

Try this -

Grab a piece of audio with consistent loudness and purposely max it out. In other words - Peak Normalize to 0 dBFS. Now pass it through the Audition Multi-Band Compressor using your modified preset. You'll notice the Peak Ceiling on the output will surpass -1.5 dB.

Now set the Output Gain to 0 dB, and set the Margin in the Limiter settings area to -1.5 dB. Do you see a difference?

-paul.

---

Thanks for the info, Paul. I'll play around with it just for my own educational purposes, but since Mike told me not to touch anything because my audio sounded almost perfect, I'm hesitant to really change anything on my productions. I'm always willing to learn, though! :)

Here's what I mean:

Watch this short demo Video.

Keep an eye on the numerical Output Gain during playback. You'll notice even though it's level is set to -1.5 dB, the actual Peak Ceiling is surpassing it.

The -1.5 dB Peak Ceiling of the output is maintained once I define -1.5 dB as the Margin in the Limiter settings area. This is the correct way to set up Limiting and to prevent clipping down stream.

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

Thanks for the info, Paul. I'll play around with it just for my own educational purposes, but since Mike told me not to touch anything because my audio sounded almost perfect, I'm hesitant to really change anything on my productions. I'm always willing to learn, though! :)

---

You're welcome! Keep me posted.

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptfigg

Here's what I mean:

Watch this short demo Video.

Keep an eye on the numerical Output Gain during playback. You'll notice even though it's level is set to -1.5 dB, the actual Peak Ceiling is surpassing it.

The -1.5 dB Peak Ceiling of the output is maintained once I define -1.5 dB as the Margin in the Limiter settings area. This is the correct way to set up Limiting and to prevent clipping down stream.

-paul.

---

Ah, I see what you mean. I'll tinker with that. It seems to me it can do nothing but help. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

Thanks for the info, Paul. I'll play around with it just for my own educational purposes, but since Mike told me not to touch anything because my audio sounded almost perfect, I'm hesitant to really change anything on my productions. I'm always willing to learn, though! :)

---

Yes Donovan, your audio does sound great so perhaps it would be nice if you would share your own secret sauce of gear and settings. The audio part of this hobby is what ultimately sucked me in, though I'm not sure why. Maybe its a quest for technical excellence or simply just a guy thing'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Ortego

Yes Donovan, your audio does sound great so perhaps it would be nice if you would share your own secret sauce of gear and settings. The audio part of this hobby is what ultimately sucked me in though I'm not sure why. Maybe its a quest for technical excellence or simply just a guy thing'.

---

I've actually started putting something together showing the settings on my mixer, sound card levels, etc. I'll definitely share it once I've completed it. Nothing I'm doing is secret and the more we share, the more informed we are and the better experience we provide for our listeners!

Donovan and everyone else reading this thread, pay very close attention to Paul's advice. While I realize his analysis is over a lot of heads, it's well worth spending the time to understand what he is saying. Donovan, you are free to follow his advice about maximum levels. Reducing the peak level on your files by 1.5dB will not alter the tonality, but it may save you some clipping. In fact, it would be helpful if Paul would analyze one of your released MP3 files.

Paul, what software are you using to do the analysis? It's useful to separate the men from the boys. I will confess that I am guilty of normalizing and hard limiting wave files to levels higher than -1.5 dB. That procedure changes today. The additional 1.5 dB does not really add to the loudness of the audio, and it does contribute to the clipping and other undesirable results from MP3 conversions.

Guys, this stuff is good. Embrace it. Once you do, you will be leagues above the "on fire" and "answerman" guys when it comes to professionalism in audio quality.

If you just can't get the hang of what Paul is saying, just normalize or hard limit your audio files to -1.5 dB instead of 0dB. It will LOOK different in your software, but you will get used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcphillips

Donovan and everyone else reading this thread, pay very close attention to Paul's advice. While I realize his analysis is over a lot of heads, it's well worth spending the time to understand what he is saying. Donovan, you are free to follow his advice about maximum levels. Reducing the peak level on your files by 1.5dB will not alter the tonality, but it may save you some clipping. In fact, it would be helpful if Paul would analyze one of your released MP3 files.

Paul, what software are you using to do the analysis? It's useful to separate the men from the boys. I will confess that I am guilty of normalizing and hard limiting wave files to levels higher than -1.5 dB. That procedure changes today. The additional 1.5 dB does not really add to the loudness of the audio, and it does contribute to the clipping and other undesirable results from MP3 conversions.

Guys, this stuff is good. Embrace it. Once you do, you will be leagues above the "on fire" and "answerman" guys when it comes to professionalism in audio quality.

If you just can't get the hang of what Paul is saying, just normalize or hard limit your audio files to -1.5 dB instead of 0dB. It will LOOK different in your software, but you will get used to it.

---

I made the adjustment last night for episode 26 of my show. Though I can't hear a difference, I do feel better watching the levels never go above -1.5db, which is what I wanted in the first place.

The other thing I'm going to test is my process. I apply the multi-band compressor first and then apply the dynamics processor that has my own settings. I'm going to switch it up and see how it sounds if I apply the dynamics processor first and then the multi-band compressor. I think I've done that in the past, but I need to try it and hear it again to be sure. As I said, I'm always willing to learn more! :)

And if he wants to analyze one of my podcasts, might I suggest last night's episode 26 which is at http://www.donovanadkisson.com/tds26

I'd love to see what he finds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcphillips

Donovan and everyone else reading this thread, pay very close attention to Paul's advice. While I realize his analysis is over a lot of heads, it's well worth spending the time to understand what he is saying. Donovan, you are free to follow his advice about maximum levels. Reducing the peak level on your files by 1.5dB will not alter the tonality, but it may save you some clipping. In fact, it would be helpful if Paul would analyze one of your released MP3 files.

Paul, what software are you using to do the analysis? It's useful to separate the men from the boys. I will confess that I am guilty of normalizing and hard limiting wave files to levels higher than -1.5 dB. That procedure changes today. The additional 1.5 dB does not really add to the loudness of the audio, and it does contribute to the clipping and other undesirable results from MP3 conversions.

Guys, this stuff is good. Embrace it. Once you do, you will be leagues above the "on fire" and "answerman" guys when it comes to professionalism in audio quality.

If you just can't get the hang of what Paul is saying, just normalize or hard limit your audio files to -1.5 dB instead of 0dB. It will LOOK different in your software, but you will get used to it.

---

Thanks Mike.

I used three different tools in the data analysis snapshot: SoX, ffmpeg, and afclip. All command line tools. The comprehensive analysis was done in Sox. The Loudness measurement was done using FFmpeg. And the Intersample Peak analysis was done using apple's afclip, which is part of the "Mastering for iTunes" toolkit.

For Loudness analysis, including all additional aspects of the specs. - I use Loudness meters both "online" (realtime). or "offline." This was done in TC Electronics LM2n meter:

http://f-video.s3.amazonaws.com/tc-matrix.jpg

Besides the obvious stats. - the radar displays the Short Term Loudness over time.

If anyone wants to experiment with the command line tools, let me know. I'll help you with the syntax. It's really not that big of a deal. Keep in mind you will need to install the compiled binaries before you can use the tools.

Also, my guess is allot of people here use Adobe Audition? Well you have comprehensive analysis built in, including Peak Amplitude, True Peak, Total RMS, and ITU Loudness specs. It's located in the Window menu/Amplitude Statistics.

Keep in mind that if you follow best practices in post, the limiting and/or normalization that would result in Peak Ceiling compliance does not necessarily result in those chopped, blocky waveforms that are prevalent in the podcasting community.

For example look here:

http://f-video.s3.amazonaws.com/wave.jpg

This clip has a Peak Ceiling of -1.5 dBFS. Sure it's compressed - but remember we're dealing with spoken word processing and not music mastering. It's two entirely different concepts. The point is I was able to process this audio to meet both a Program Loudness target and a suitable Peak Ceiling while retaining acceptable transient response for highly dynamic spoken word.

And again I reiterate - be aware of the differences between Peak amplitude and Program Loudness ( Integrated/Average loudness). They're not the same, and they need to be dealt with independently.

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

I made the adjustment last night for episode 26 of my show. Though I can't hear a difference, I do feel better watching the levels never go above -1.5db, which is what I wanted in the first place.

The other thing I'm going to test is my process. I apply the multi-band compressor first and then apply the dynamics processor that has my own settings. I'm going to switch it up and see how it sounds if I apply the dynamics processor first and then the multi-band compressor. I think I've done that in the past, but I need to try it and hear it again to be sure. As I said, I'm always willing to learn more! :)

---

Donovan,

Cool. Remember the Peak Ceiling compliance issue is not an audio enhancement process. The sole purpose of it is to prevent overload (clipping).

Keep in mind that the Limiting for compliance purposes should always be located at the very last stage of the processing chain. This holds true whether you are using a Limiter or if you are simply peak normalizing, just to adhere to s suitable Ceiling.

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

And if he wants to analyze one of my podcasts, might I suggest last night's episode 26 which is at http://www.donovanadkisson.com/tds26

I'd love to see what he finds.

---

I already did ;), although I think it was the previous episode. The Peak Amplitude was 0 dBFS and there were Intersample Peaks. With respect if you submitted that to me it would not comply.

Your Program Loudness was close to the recommended spec, so that's good. OTOH that's entirely different issue that I'm sure we will get into.

I'll check the most recent episode ...

-paul.

Well, if this doesn't limit the playing field of thread participants I don't know what will. I was almost with you until it drifted into command line tools, syntax, and compiled binaries, at which point it made Adobe Audition seem like child’s play. Yep, its over my head but I admire those willing to work at this level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

And if he wants to analyze one of my podcasts, might I suggest last night's episode 26 which is at http://www.donovanadkisson.com/tds26

I'd love to see what he finds.

---

I measured the file:

Peak Amplitude: +0.27 dBFS (Clipped)

True Peak: +1.02 dBTP

Total Intersample Peaks: 144

Program Loudness: -17.4 LUFS (Mono)

* * *

I'm not sure what tools you have access to. Fill me in and I'll make some suggestions. As far as the Program Loudness, it's slightly hotter than what's slowly becoming the recommended standard. But that's ok. As long as you produce consistent results on a show to show basis, we'll save that discussion. There are variables, mainly the differences in how to handle processing Mono files vs. Stereo. And there are various aspects of "Loudness Normalization" that we can discuss. Note that it's not the same as Peak Normalization or RMS Normalization.

Like I said we can get into this after we solve the clipped audio issue ...

Keep me posted.

In any case I know this stuff may be a bit complex. However - if you (not you personally Donovan :) ) want to learn how to get it done right, there's no way around the complexities. Otherwise the space will continue to be occupied by people giving bad advice and "students" not realizing that they are being misinformed.

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptfigg

I measured the file:

Peak Amplitude: +0.27 dBFS (Clipped)

True Peak: +1.02 dBTP

Total Intersample Peaks: 144

Program Loudness: -17.4 LUFS (Mono)

* * *

I'm not sure what tools you have access to. Fill me in and I'll make some suggestions. As far as the Program Loudness, it's slightly hotter than what's slowly becoming the recommended standard. But that's ok. As long as you produce consistent results on a show to show basis, we'll save that discussion. There are variables, mainly the differences in how to handle processing Mono files vs. Stereo. And there are various aspects of "Loudness Normalization" that we can discuss. Note that it's not the same as Peak Normalization or RMS Normalization.

Like I said we can get into this after we solve the clipped audio issue ...

Keep me posted.

In any case I know this stuff may be a bit complex. However - if you (not you personally Donovan :) ) want to learn how to get it done right, there's no way around the complexities. Otherwise the space will continue to be occupied by people giving bad advice and "students" not realizing that they are being misinformed.

-paul.

---

Thanks, Paul! I have Adobe Audition, ffmeg, etc. If I don't have a program I need, I can possibly get my hands on it.

Can you share the command line parameters you're using to measure these stats?

Thanks.

I scanned my processed .wav file from last night's episode in Audition. This is what it told me -


https://s3.amazonaws.com/amn_shows/m...Statistics.PNG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

Thanks, Paul! I have Adobe Audition, ffmeg, etc. If I don't have a program I need, I can possibly get my hands on it.

Can you share the command line parameters you're using to measure these stats?

Thanks.

---

You're very welcome and I'm happy to help.

For the comprehensive SoX analysis:

At the prompt:

sox --show-progress Your_Input_File.wav -n stats

For Loudness Specification Analysis using FFmpeg:

At the prompt:

ffmpeg -nostats -i Your_Input_File.wav -filter_complex ebur128=peak=true -f null –

You should be good to go in Audition by accessing Amplitude Statistics and running "Scan."

If you are interested in learning how to use a Loudness Meter, we can open a discussion. Keep in mind if you are running an up to date version of Audition, a scaled down version of TC Electronic Loudness Meter is bundled:

Effects/Special/Loudness Radar Meter

There are many other meters. I own most of them and I'm happy to offer anyone assistance.

"afclip" is part of the "Mastered for iTunes" toolkit, and only available for Mac.

Again, keep us posted ...

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donovan

I scanned my processed .wav file from last night's episode in Audition. This is what it told me -


https://s3.amazonaws.com/amn_shows/m...Statistics.PNG

---

It looks like you're running an older version of Audition that lacks True Peak analysis and Loudness stats ...

Here's what I get in Audition CC:

Attachment 278

-paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ptfigg

It looks like you're running an older version of Audition that lacks True Peak analysis and Loudness stats ...

Here's what I get in Audition CC:

Attachment 278

-paul.

---

Yeah, I'm still using 5.5. Adobe gave me a year of everything when an article was written on me and my process using their software, but after the year was up, I couldn't justify the $50 per month. I realize that Audition is just $19.95 per month, but I haven't felt the need to upgrade. Maybe it's time. I like statistics. :)

Great conversation guys and I'm on-board. However, it would be helpful if you actually pointed out who you were referring to if you are going to call out others. At a very minimum it would be respectful to exclude people you are not talking about. Painting a broad stoke over "consultant" is damaging to those of us who are perceived as consultants whether we actually promote ourselves that way or not.

In my case, I'm working hard to help podcasters understand the issue and process of Loudness Normalization. If I'm doing something wrong in your opinion it would be very helpful to know that. I am aware of who this thread is mostly calling out but there are some very broad statements in here that don't let anyone else know who is or isn't giving out "bad" information.

Again, all this info is very helpful and I'm excited to help those podcasters who care enough about their production values understand what loudness is about and how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rayortega

Great conversation guys and I'm on-board. However, it would be helpful if you actually pointed out who you were referring to if you are going to call out others. At a very minimum it would be respectful to exclude people you are not talking about. Painting a broad stoke over "consultant" is damaging to those of us who are perceived as consultants whether we actually promote ourselves that way or not.

In my case, I'm working hard to help podcasters understand the issue and process of Loudness Normalization. If I'm doing something wrong in your opinion it would be very helpful to know that. I am aware of who this thread is mostly calling out but there are some very broad statements in here that don't let anyone else know who is or isn't giving out "bad" information.

Again, all this info is very helpful and I'm excited to help those podcasters who care enough about their production values understand what loudness is about and how it works.

---

Hey Ray! Love the service you provide for the Podcasting industry! You are one of the good ones for sure!

I personally would not want to call anyone out by name. The bad is out there and most people know who they are.

Welcome to the site Rey,

I didn't read this thread as calling out anyone in particular. While there is a real problem with people who call themselves podcasting "consultants", they're not all bad. It's the 98% that give the other 2% a bad rap. But that's another thread lol

Thanks Paul, thanks Tommy. I was referred to this thread precisely because someone thought it might be pointed at me since I'm out there talking about Loudness on my show. So at the very least, being excluded is important as you can see. And I'm always open for constructive criticism if something I'm saying needs work. Thanks everyone! IAIB is a great site with so much awesome content. Glad this resource exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rayortega

Great conversation guys and I'm on-board. However, it would be helpful if you actually pointed out who you were referring to if you are going to call out others. At a very minimum it would be respectful to exclude people you are not talking about. Painting a broad stoke over "consultant" is damaging to those of us who are perceived as consultants whether we actually promote ourselves that way or not.

In my case, I'm working hard to help podcasters understand the issue and process of Loudness Normalization. If I'm doing something wrong in your opinion it would be very helpful to know that. I am aware of who this thread is mostly calling out but there are some very broad statements in here that don't let anyone else know who is or isn't giving out "bad" information.

Again, all this info is very helpful and I'm excited to help those podcasters who care enough about their production values understand what loudness is about and how it works.

---

Ray, question:

If you're comfortable with your level of knowledge, hands on experience, and feedback received - why would you be so concerened with my general accusations about the "bad advise" that is circulating out there? You obviously have a solid reputation. That's all that should matter.

Let me ask you - have you ever openly disclosed that you basically had no clue about a piece of gear, passed along manufactuers' recommendations to a client of yours, and then charged a fee for this advise? Or, have you ever passed along information about a plugin that you had no clue about, recommended the use of a "preset" - with very little understanding of what the processor was actually doing - and then charged a fee for it?

This is the kind of stuff that I'm taking about.

Also, if you and/or the person that tipped you off about my accusations, are concerned that I may have been implying that your advise directly related to audio processing/loudness compliance is "bad" - that was not the case. The question is - do you feel that you are at a level where you can honestly take on the responsibility as a teacher for this subject? Are you simply using your position in the community acting as a conduit, passing along what you are leaning from others to those in the community who want to hear what you have to say? If this is the case well then if someone calls you out, you should be prepared to backup what you are passing along.

From a personal standpoint, if someone reads what I write or hears what I have to say and gains value from it, well that's great. If not, who cares? I know that I would never charge someone for generic advise, especially if I had no clue about what I was recommending. And If I do take a stand, I'm prepared to back it up. Lastly, I'm always aware that eventually someone else is going to come along who has more experience and a higher level of knowledge. When this happens everyone benefits.

-paul.

Definitely not here to argue or fill this thread with unrelated discussion so I'll email separately. Just pointing out that perception is everything (insert loudness joke here). Although I will say this might make a good Podcasters' Roundtable, you're all invited!;)

Bottom line is there are good consultants and bad consultants. Its seems to be the trend now with people coming into podcasting and claiming to be an expert when they have no experience with podcasting. The bad thing is these people are hurting the good guys out there.. Ray is one of the good ones out there trying to make a difference.

For those interested Hindenburg Journalist Pro is the only audio editing system built exclusively for radio journalists and raconteurs. It automatically adjusts loudness of narrated and music audio to meet EU, UK and US broadcast loudness levels. Below is a video that shows this in practice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAKJKF-SWR4

I am testing this software and I am very impressed.

Very impressive and seems great for someone like me that doesn’t care to dive into the weeds with the science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by docizzen

For those interested Hindenburg Journalist Pro is the only audio editing system built exclusively for radio journalists and raconteurs. It automatically adjusts loudness of narrated and music audio to meet EU, UK and US broadcast loudness levels. Below is a video that shows this in practice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAKJKF-SWR4

I am testing this software and I am very impressed.

---

Very nice! Let us know how you like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by docizzen

For those interested Hindenburg Journalist Pro is the only audio editing system built exclusively for radio journalists and raconteurs. It automatically adjusts loudness of narrated and music audio to meet EU, UK and US broadcast loudness levels. Below is a video that shows this in practice:

I am testing this software and I am very impressed.

---

It's definitely nice software. In fact I've been in touch with them.

If you're working in Radio Post targeting R128 specs, well then it's a no brainer. OTOH if you're producing for internet/mobile and Podcast, there's no way to customize the automatic loudness processing targets.

The issue is -23.0 LUFS Program Loudness (that's average loudness and not Peak Amplitude) is not suitable for all formats of delivery. It's simply perceptually too "low." Try listening to a Podcast or watching a video on a mobile device in a noisy ambient space with the audio Loudness Normalized to -23.0 LUFS. You'll see what I mean.

In my conversation with the Hindy developer, it was noted that they realize there is a sort of discrepancy. However they don't necessarilly support the idea of multiple loudness specifications. In my view there's simply no way around it.

Bottom line is if this changes, I may then take a serious look at it. Like I said it is a well designed (and pretty) application.

-paul